MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recovery Of Myeloid Derived Suppressor Cell Subsets Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem/Progenitor Cell Transplantation

2013· article· en· W2247849493 on OpenAlexaff
Qingdong Guan, Anna R. Blankstein, Karla Anjos, Oleksandra Synova, Marie Tulloch, Angeline Giftakis, Bin Yang, Geoff D.E. Cuvelier, Zhikang Peng, Donna A. Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune cells in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunologyStem cellMyeloid-derived Suppressor CellMyeloidProgenitor cellInflammationHaematopoiesisPopulationBiologyImmune systemMedicineCancer researchCell biologySuppressorInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are a heterogeneous population of immature myeloid cells that expand during many inflammatory conditions and malignancies. MDSCs may play an important role following allogeneic hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell transplant (HSCT). MDSCs suppress T-cell, B-cell and dendritic cell responses by a number of mechanisms, including promoting regulatory T cell expansion and producing soluble mediators such as Arginase 1 (Arg-1) and iNOS. MDSCs are divided into two subsets: monocytic (M-MDSCs) and granulocytic (G-MDSCs). MDSC morphology and function differ in various tissues under different inflammatory conditions. In a murine asthma model, M-MDSCs inhibit airway inflammation, but the other subset of MDSCs exacerbated airway inflammation. In a sepsis model, MDSCs exaggerated inflammation in the early stage, but suppressed inflammation in the later stage of sepsis. As the early post-transplant period is characterized by the rapid expansion of immature myeloid cells, we postulated this time period may also be a time when MDSCs might play a major role in modulating immune recovery post-transplant, and aid in the development of immune regulatory networks potentially important in the pathophysiology of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). In nine patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT, peripheral blood was drawn on the day prior to the start of conditioning, days +4-5, +7-9, +14-16, +21-23, +27-29 and +80-100 post HSCT. White blood cells were quantified, red cell depleted using HetaSep (Stem Cell Technologies), then stained with fluorescence-labelled antibodies against CD45, CD15, CD14, HLA-DR, CD33 and CD66b and analyzed by flow cytometry for MDSC subsets. The soluble mediators iNOS and Arg-1were evaluated by intracellular staining for iNOS and Arg-1 and analyzed by flow cytometry. Four of the nine patients developed acute GVHD (II-IV) and/or extensive chronic GVHD. Early recovery of CD33+CD14+HLA-DR-/low M-MDSCs and CD33+CD15+CD66b+ G-MDSCs was seen post-transplant. Compared to healthy donors, the percentage of M- and G-MDSCs was increased by 3 weeks post-transplant. Interestingly, the patients who went on to develop GVHD had lower percentage and number of M-MDSCs, but inversely had higher numbers of G-MDSCs by day +27-29 and day +80-100 post-transplant (Fig. 1). When compared with healthy donors, the expression of Arg-1 in G-MDSCs, a measure of activation of MDSCs, was increased in patients pre- and post-HSCT, especially at day +80-100; while there was no difference seen iNOS expression in G-MDSCs (Fig 2). The expression of Arg-1 and iNOS in M-MDSCs was increased pre-transplant but fell by day +80-100 post HSCT (Fig 2). Taken together, our pilot data indicates that both M- and G- MDSCs recover early post HSCT and may contribute to the pathophysiology of GVHD. Patients with lower numbers of M-MDSCs and higher numbers of G-MDSCs at earlier time points post-transplant might be at greater risk for developing GVHD. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicImmune cells in cancerFrench-language works237,207